Owens v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

August 4, 2017

LEZLI OWENS, Movant,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN
McBRYDE States District Judge.

Came on
for consideration the motion of Lezli Owens
("movant") under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered such
motion, the memorandum in support, the government's
response, and pertinent parts of the record in Case No.
4:15-CR-214-A, styled "United States of America v. Lezli
Owens, et al., " the court has concluded that the motion
should be denied.

I.

Background

Information
contained in the record of the underlying criminal case
discloses the following:

On
September 16, 2015, movant and Caleb Smith were named in a
one-count indictment charging them with conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. CR Doc.[1] 18. On October
23, 2015, movant pleaded guilty to the charge set forth in
the indictment. CR Doc. 29. Under oath, movant stated that no
one had made any promise or assurance of any kind to induce
her to plead guilty. Further, movant stated her understanding
that the guideline range was advisory and was one of many
sentencing factors the court could consider; that the
guideline range could not be calculated until the presentence
report ("PSR") was prepared; the court could impose
a sentence more severe that the sentence recommended by the
advisory guidelines and movant would be bound by her guilty
plea; movant was satisfied with her counsel and had no
complaints regarding her representation; and, movant and
counsel had reviewed the factual resume and movant understood
the meaning of everything in it and the stipulated facts were
true and accurate. CR Doc. 83. The court accepted for filing
the factual resume movant and her attorney had signed on
October 1, 2105. CR Doc. 83 at 22; CR Doc. 31.

The
probation officer prepared a PSR that indicated that
movant's base offense level of 34 with a two-level
enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon in drug-trafficking
and a two-level enhancement for importation of
methamphetamine from Mexico and a three-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, for a total offense level of
35. CR Doc. 39, PSR at 14-15, ¶¶ 66-76. Based on
her total offense level and criminal history category of IV,
the guideline imprisonment range was 235 to 2 93 months;
however, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence of
twenty years reduced the guideline range to 235 months to 240
months. Id., at 28, ¶ 157. The probation
officer concluded with a discussion of factors that might
warrant upward departure and a sentence outside the advisory
guideline system. Id. at 30-31, ¶¶ 171-73.
Following objections by movant, CR Doc. 62, the probation
officer issued an addendum to the presentence report. CR Doc.
43. Movant again objected. CR Doc. 63. By order signed
February 19, 2016, the court notified the parties that it had
tentatively concluded that the objections were without merit.
CR Doc. 52.

On
February 28, 2016, movant was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 240 months, to be followed by a three-year
term of supervised release. CR Doc. 58. Movant appealed and
her sentence was affirmed. CR Doc. 81. United States v.
Owens, 672 F.App'x 395 (5th Cir. 2016) .

II.

Grounds
of the Motion

Movant
urges four grounds in support of her motion, worded as
follows:

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.